Am I deceiving myself, or has the American press and editorial pundits begun to dispense with what was once obligatory Bush bashing and Bush hatred? Here we are, half a year after the inauguration of Barack Obama, and suddenly, some commentators can no longer refrain to give George W. Bush some credit for doing something good, other than saying over and over that he was the worst President in American history.
First was Times reporter Dexter Filkins, writing in a recent issue of The New Republic on the history of the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan, explained that “Whatever one’s view of the war, it is impossible to deny that in the eleventh hour Bush was right.” (my emphasis) By giving his support to the new strategy of the surge, despite major opposition from within and without his own administration, the former President helped turn the situation around and created the conditions that might lead to a democratic Iraq.
Now, writing in today’s New York Times, the most influential commentator in our country on foreign policy, Thomas L. Friedman, devotes his column to the victory for the democratic forces in Lebanon, where he went to observe the election. Friedman sees the electoral success of Saad Hariri’s March 14th coalition as a major rebuke to the Islamists and to Hezbollah, who no longer can push Lebanon into a war against Israel and who have made clear by their vote that they want a nation run by Lebanese, not by Syria or Iran.
Then Friedman observes:
While the Lebanese deserve 95 percent of the credit for this election, 5 percent goes to two U.S. presidents. As more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 – and forcing them to get out of Lebanon after the Hariri killing – this free election would not have happened. Mr. Bush helped create the space. Power matters. Mr. Obama helped stir the hope. Words also matter.
I had to re-read his sentence twice. Imagine. Not only giving George W. Bush major credit for “standing up to the Syrians,” but equating him with having a positive influence akin to that of Barack Obama.
What wonders will we see in the future?
PJM Home
A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel
Commies: A Journey Through the Old Left, the New Left and the Leftover Left
Red Star Over Hollywood: The Film Colony’s Long Romance with the Left
The Rosenberg File: Second Edition
Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War (Annals of Communism Series)
Divided They Fell
Prophets on the Right
The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
4 Comments
1. David Thomson:George W. Bush is a politically correct, progressive Republican—who stood tall when fighting the Jihadis in Iraq. It took him a while to get his act together, but he eventually did so. Unfortunately, Bush will most likely be remembered as another Herbert Hoover who ushered in the age of the newest incarnation of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The country would have been far better off had Dick Cheney been president and he the vice-president. But life sucks and then you die.
You are listening to a historical illiterate anytime you hear somebody assert that Bush was our worst president. They obviously never heard of either Andrew Johnson or Woodrow Wilson. Bush was above average. We could have done a lot worse. He was also able to take advantage of his Harvard University credentials. Both Bush and Obama are merely modestly talented individuals. Americans must finally realize that a soft science degree from Harvard is not necessarily anything to brag home about.
Jun 10, 2009 - 3:49 pm 2. Dave:Yes David Thompson, both Bush and Obama are
but modestly talented.
The difference? Culture.
The Bush cultural background is far, far superior to that of Obama.
Than God.
Jun 11, 2009 - 4:39 am 3. Tcobb:In retrospect, George Bush’s major sin was that he attempted to act as a gentleman. The people who vilified him for the most part were contemptible people who were very vulnerable to being called out for all the flaws that they attributed to him. I think the current popular term is “projection.” I think history will be far kinder to Bush than it will be to the little nasty people who worship at the Altar of Obama.
Jun 11, 2009 - 11:58 am 4. Confused in Virginia:One can always hope that they see this fake President for what he really is: an empty-headed, bend with the wind, cheerleader, who knows nothing about foreign policy and even less about the economy.
No disrespect meant to cheerleaders, who provide a valuable service and who would not pretend to be the President.
Jun 25, 2009 - 12:00 am